The Book of Jubilees is in certain limited aspects the most important book
in this volume for the student of religion. Without it we could of course have
inferred from Ezra and Nehemiah, the Priests' Code, and the later chapters of
Zechariah the supreme position that the law had achieved in Judaism, but
without Jubilees we could hardly have imagined such an absolute supremacy as
finds expression in this book. This absolute supremacy of the law carried with
it, as we have seen in the General Introduction, the suppression of prophecy
-at all events of the open exercise of the prophetic gifts. And yet these
gifts persisted during all the so-called centuries of silence-from Malachi
down to N.T. times, but owing to the fatal incubus of the law these gifts
could not find expression save in pseudepigraphic literature. Thus Jubilees
represents the triumph of the movement, which had been at work for the past
three centuries or more.

And yet this most triumphant manifesto of legalism contained within its
pages the element that was destined to dispute its supremacy and finally to
reduce the law to the wholly secondary position that alone it could rightly
claim. This element of course is apocalyptic, which was the source of the
higher theology in Judaism, and subsequently was the parent of Christianity,
wherein apocalyptic ceased to be pseudonymous and became one with prophecy.

The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year
of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high priesthood in 135 and his breach with
the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 B.C. It is the most advanced
pre-Christian representative of the midrashic tendency, which has already been
at work in the Old Testament Chronicles. As the Chronicler had rewritten the
history of Israel and Judah from the basis of the Priests' Code, so our author
re-edited from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the history of events from
the creation to the publication, or, according to the author's view, the
republication of the law on Sinai. In the course of re-editing he incorporated
a large body of traditional lore, which the midrashic process had put at his
disposal, and also not a few fresh legal enactments that the exigencies of the
past had called forth. His work constitutes an enlarged Targum on Genesis and
Exodus, in which difficulties in the biblical narrative are solved, gaps
supplied, dogmatically offensive elements removed, and the genuine spirit of
later Judaism infused into the primitive history of the world. His object was
to defend Judaism against the attacks of the hellenistic spirit that had been
in the ascendant one generation earlier and was still powerful, and to prove
that the law was of everlasting validity. From our author's contentions and
his embittered attacks on the paganisers and apostates, we may infer that
Hellenism had urged that the levitical ordinances of the law were only of
transitory significance, that they had not been observed by the founders of
the nation, and that the time had now come for them to be swept away, and for
Israel to take its place in the brotherhood of the nations. Our author
regarded all such views as fatal to the very existence of Jewish religion and
nationality. But it is not as such that he assailed them, but on the ground of
their falsehood. The law, he teaches, is of everlasting validity. Though
revealed in time it was superior to time. Before it had been made known in
gundry portions to the fathers it had been kept in heaven by the angels, and
to its observance henceforward there was no limit in time or in eternity.

Writing in the palmiest days of the Maccabean dominion,in the
high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus, looked for the immediate advent of the
Messianic kingdom. This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung, not
from Levi -that is, from the Maccabean family, as some of his contemporaries
expected- but from Judah. This kingdom would be gradually realized on earth,
and the transformation of physical nature would go hand in hand with the
ethical transformation of man till there was a new heaven and a new earth.
Thus, finally, all sin and pain would disappear and men would live to the age
of 1,000 years in happiness and peace, and after death enjoy a blessed
immortality in the spirit world.

This appears from Epiphanius (Haer.
xxxix. 6) to have been its usual designation. It is found also in the Syriac
Fragment entitled 'Names of the Wives of the Patriarchs according to the
Hebrew Book of Jubilees,' first published by Ceriani, Mon. sacra et profana,
ii. 1.9-10, and reprinted by the present writer in his edition of The
Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees. This name admirably
describes the book, as it divides into jubilee periods of forty-nine years
each the history of the world from the creation to the legislation on Sinai.
The writer pursues a perfectly symmetrical development of the heptadic
system. Israel enters Canaan at the close of the fiftieth jubilee, i.e.
2450.

The epithet 'little' does not
refer to the extent of the book, for it is larger than the canonical
Genesis, but to its character. It deals more fully with details than the
biblical work. The Hebrew title was variously rendered in Greek. 1 [(Gk.) he
lepte Genesis (or Lepte Genesis)] as in Epiphanius, Syncellus, Zonaras,
Glycas. 2 [(Gk.) he Leptogenesis] in Didymus of Alexandria and in Latin
writers, as we may infer from the Decree of Gelasius. 3 [Gk.) ta lepta
geneseos] in Syncellus. 4 [(Gk.) Mikrogenesis] in Jerome, who was acquainted
with the Hebrew original.

This title had some currency in
the time of Synceflus (see i. 5, 49). It forms an appropriate designation
since it makes Moses the recipient of all the disclosures in the book.

This title is found in the
Catena of Nicephorus, i. 175, where it precedes a quotation from x. 21 of
our book. It has, however, nothing to do with the Testament of Moses,
which has become universally known under the wrong title -the Assumption
of Moses. Ronsch and other scholars formerly sought to identify Jubilees
with this second Testament of Moses, but this identification is shown to
be impossible by the fact that in the Stichometry of Nicephorus 4,300
stichoi are assigned to Jubilees and only 1100 to this Testament of Moses.
On the probability of a Testament of Moses having been in circulation
-which was in reality an expansion of Jubilees ii-iii see my edition of
Jubilees, p. xviii.

This book is identified
with Jubilees in the Decree of Gelasius, but it probably consisted merely
of certain excerpts from Jubilees dealing with the names and histories of
the women mentioned in it. Such a collection, as we have already seen,
exists in Syriac, and its Greek prototype was used by the scribe of the
LXX MS. no.135 in Holmes and Parsons' edition.

This title is found in Syncellus i.
7-9. It seems to have been an enlarged edition of the portion of Jubilees,
which dealt with the life of Adam.

THE ETHIOPIC MSS.

There are four Ethiopic MSS., a b c d, the first and fourth of which
belong to the National Library in Paris, the second to the British Museum,
and the third to the University Library at Tubingen. Of these a b (of the
fifteenth and sixteenth century respectively) are the most trustworthy,
though they cannot be followed exclusively. In a, furthermore, the readings
of the Ethiopic version of Genesis have replaced the original against bed in
iii. 4, 6, 7, 19, 29; iv. 4, 8, &c. For a full description of these MSS.
the reader can consult Charles's Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of
Jubilees, pp. xii seqq.

THE ANCIENT VERSIONS-GREEK, ETHIOPIC, LATIN, SYRIAC.

(a) The Greek Version is lost save for some fragments which survive in
Epiphanius [(Gk.) peri Metron kai Stathmon] (ed. Dindorf, vol. iv. 27-8).
This fragment, which consists of ii. 2-21, is published with critical notes
in Charles's edition of the Ethiopic text. Other fragments of this version
are preserved in Justin Martyr, Origen, Diodorus of Antioch, Isidore of
Alexandria, Isidore of Seville, Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, John of
Malala, Syncellus, Cedrenus. Syncellus attributes to the Canonical Genesis
statements derived from our text. This version is the parent of the Ethiopic
and Latin Versions.

(b) The Ethiopic Version. This version is most accurate and trustworthy
and indeed as a rule servilely literal. It has, of course, suffered from the
corruptions naturally incident to transmission through MSS. Thus
dittographies are frequent and lacunae are of occasional occurrence, but the
version is singularly free from the glosses and corrections of unscrupulous
scribes, though the temptation must have been great to bring it into accord
with the Ethiopic version of Genesis. To this source, indeed, we must trace
a few perversions of the text: 'my wife' in iii. 6 instead of 'wife'; xv 12;
xvii. 12 ('her bottle' instead of 'the bottle'); xxiv. 19 (where the words
'a well' are not found in the Latin version of Jubilees, nor in the Mass.,
Sam., LXX, Syr., and Vulg. of Gen. xxvi. 19). In the above passages the
whole version is influenced, but in a much greater degree has this influence
operated on MS. a. Thus in iii. 4, 6, 7, 19, 29, iv. 4, 8, v.3, vi. 9,
&c., the readings of the Ethiopic version of Genesis have replaced the
original text. In the case of b there appears to be only one instance of
this nature in xv. 15 (see Charles's Text, pp. xii seqq.).

(c) The Latin Version. This version, of which about one-fourth has been
preserved, was first published by Ceriani in his Monnmenta sacra et profana,
1861, tom. i. fase. i. 15-62. It contains the following sections: xiii.
10b-21; xv. 20b-31a; xvi. 5b-xvii. 6a; xviii. 10b-xix. 25; xx. 5b-xxi. 10a;
xxii. 2-19a; xxiii. 8b-23a; xxiv. 13-xxv. 1a; xxvi. 8b-23a; xxvii. 11b-24a;
xxviii. 16b-27a; xxix. 8b-xxxi. 1a; xxxi. 9b-1 8, 29b-32; xxxii. 1-8a,
18b-xxxiii. 9a, 18b-xxxiv. 5a; xxxv. 3b-12a; xxxvi. 20b-xxxvii. 5a; xxxviii.
1b-16a; xxxix. 9-xl. 8a; xli. 6b-18; xlii. 2b-14a; xlv. 8-xlvi. 1,
12-xlviii. 5; xlix. 7b-22. This version was next edited by Ronsch in 1874,
Das Buch der Fubilaen . . . unter Befugung des revidirten Textes der . . .
lateinisehen Fragmente. This work attests enormous industry and great
learning, but is deficient in judgement and critical acumen. Ronsch was of
opinion that this Latin version was made in Egypt or its neighbourhood by a
Palestinian Jew about the middle of the fifth century (pp.459-60). In 1895
Charles edited this text afresh in conjunction with the Ethiopic in the
Oxford Anecdota (The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees). To
this work and that of Ronsch above the reader must be referred for a fuller
treatment of this subject. Here we may draw attention to the following
points. This version, where it is preserved, is almost of equal value with
the Ethiopic. It has, however, suffered more at the hands of correctors.
Thus it has been corrected in conformity with the LXX in xlvi. 14, where it
adds 'et Oon' against all other authorities. The Ethiopic version of Exod.
i. 11 might have been expected to bring about this addition in our Ethiopic
text, but it did not. Two similar instances will be found in xvii. 5, xxiv.
20. Again the Latin version seems to have been influenced by the Vulgate in
xxix. 13. xlii. II (canos meos where our Ethiopic text = [(Gk.) mou to
geras] as in LXX of Gen. xlii. 38); and probably also in xlvii. 7, 8, and
certainly in xlv. 12, where it reads 'in tota terra' for 'in terra'. Of
course there is the possibility that the Latin has reproduced faithfully the
Greek and that the Greek was faulty; or in case it was correct, that it was
the Greek presupposed by our Ethiopic version that was at fault.

Two other passages are deserving of attention, xix. 14 and xxxix. 13. In
the former the Latin version 'et creverunt et iuvenes facti sunt' agrees
with the Ethiopic version of Gen. xxv. 27 against the Ethiopic version of
Jubilees and all other authorities on Gen. xxv. 27. Here the peculiar
reading can be best explained as having originated in the Greek. In the
second passage, the clause 'eorum quae fiebant in carcere' agrees with the
Ethiopic version of Gen. xxxix. 23 against the Ethiopic version of Jubilees
and all other authorities on Gen. xxxix. 23. On the other hand, there is a
large array of passages in which the Latin version preserves the true text
over against corruptions or omissions in the Ethiopic version: cf. xvi. 16,
xix. 5, 10, 11, xx. 6, 10, xxi. 3, xxii. 3, &c. (see my Text, p. xvi).

(d) The Syriac Version. The evidence as to the existence of a Syriac is
not conclusive. It is based on the fact that a British Museum MS. (Add.
12154, fol. 180) contains a Syriac fragment entitled, Names of the Wives of
the Patriarchs according to the Hebrew Book called Jubilees.' It was first
published by Ceriani in his Monumeitta Sacra, 1861, torn. ii. fasc. i. 9-10,
and reprinted by Charles as Appendix III to his Text of Jubilees (p. 183).

THE ETHIOPIC AND LATIN VERSIONS-TRANSLATIONS FROM THE GREEK.

Like all the biblical literature in Ethiopic, Jubilees was translated
into Ethiopic from the Greek. Greek words such as [drus, balanos, lips,
schinos, pharaggs, &c., are transliterated into Ethiopic. Secondly, many
passages must be retranslated into Greek before we can discover the source
of their corruptions. And finally, many names are transliterated as they
appear in Greek and not in Hebrew.

That the Latin is derived directly from the Greek is no less obvious.
Thus in xxxix. 12 [(Lt.) timoris = (Gk.) deilias], a corruption of douleias;
in xxxviii. 13 [(Lt.) honorem = (Gk.) timen], which should have been
rendered by (Lt.) tributum. Another class of mistranslations may be seen in
passages where the Greek article is rendered by the Latin demonstrative as
in (Lt.) huius Abrahae xxix. i6, huic Istrael xxxi. 15. Other evidence
pointing in the same direction is to be found in the Greek constructions
which have been reproduced in the Latin; such as xvii. 3 (Lt.) mem or fuit
sermones' = (Gk.) hemnesthe tous logous: in xv. 22 (Lt.) consummavit loquens
= (Gk.) Sunetelese lalon: in xxii. 8 (Lt.) 'in omnibus quibus dedisti' = en
pasin ois edokas.

THE GREEK-A TRANSLATION FROM THE HEBREW.

The early date of our book -the second century B.C.- and the fact that it
was written in Palestine speak for a Semitic original, and the evidence for
such an original is conclusive. But the question at once arises, was the
original written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Certain proper names in the Latin
version ending in -in seem to bespeak an Aramaic original, as Cettin xxiv.
28; Adurin xxxviii. 8,9; Filistin xxiv. 14-16. But since in all these cases
the Ethiopic transliterations end in -n and not in -nit is not improbable
that this Aramaising in the Latin version is due to the translator, who, as
Ronsch has concluded on other grounds, was a Palestinian Jew. Again, in the
list of the twelve trees suitable for burning on the altar some are
transliterations of Aramaic names. But in a late Hebrew work -written at the
close of the second century B.C.- the popular names of such objects would
naturally be used. Moreover, in certain cases the Hebrew may have already
been forgotten, or, when the tree had been lately introduced, been
non-existent.

But the arguments for a Hebrew original are many and weighty. (1) A work
which claims to be from the hand of Moses would naturally be written in
Hebrew; for Hebrew, according to our author, was the sacred and national
language, xii. 25-6; xliii. 15. (2) The revival of the national spirit is,
so far as we know, accompanied by a revival of the national language. (3)
The existing text must be retranslated into Hebrew in order to explain
unintelligible expressions and restore the true text. Thus (Ar.) la 'eleja
in xliii. 11 = (Gk.) en emoi; which is a mistranslation in this context of
(Hb.); for (Hb.) here = (Gk.) deomai, 'pray,' as in Gen. xliv. 18. In xlvii.
9 the text = (Lt.) 'domum (= Hb. ) Faraonis', but the context demands (Lt.)
'filiam (= Hb.) Faraonis',though here the argument is not conclusive, since
(Hb.) might have been corruptly written for (Hb.) which in Aramaic =
'daughter'. Again in xxxvi. 10 (cp. also xxxix. 6) the text = (Gk.) ouk
anabesetai (= ja'arg) (Gk.) eis to biblion tes zoes. But ja'arg must = 'will
be recorded'. Now this meaning is unattested elsewhere in Ethiopic, but the
difficulty is solved when we find that it is a Hebrew idiom: see I Chron.
xxvii. 24, 2 Chron. xx. 34. (4) Many paronomasiae discover themselves on
retranslation into Hebrew, as in iv. 9 there is a play on the name Enoch, in
iv. 15 on Jared, in viii. 8 on Peleg, &c. (5) Many passages are
preserved in Rabbinic writings, and the book has much matter in common with
the Testaments xii Patriarchs, 'which was written about the same date in
Hebrew. Both books, in fact, use a chronology peculiar to themselves. (6)
Fragments of the original Hebrew text or of the sources used by its author
are to be found in the Book of Noah and the Midrasch Wajjisau in Jellinek's
Beth-ha-Midrasch, iii. 155-6, 3-5, reprinted in Charles's edition of the
Ethiopic text on pp. 179-81.

TEXTUAL AFFINITIES.

A minute study of the text shows that it attests an independent form of
the Hebrew text of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus. Thus it agrees
with individual authorities such as the Samaritan or the LXX, or the Syriac,
or the Vulgate, or the Targum of Onkelos against all the rest. Or again it
agrees with two or more of these authorities in opposition to the rest, as
for instance with the Massoretic and Samaritan against the LXX, Syriac and
Vulgate, or with the Massoretic and Onkelos against the Samaritan, LXX,
Syriac, and Vulgate, or with the Massoretic, Samaritan and Syriac against
the LXX or Vulgate. But the reader must here be referred to Charles's Book
of Jubilees (pp. xxxiii--xxxix) for a full classification of these
instances. A study of these phenomena proves that our book represents some
form of the Hebrew text midway between the forms presupposed by the LXX and
the Syriac; for it agrees more frequently with the LXX, or with combinations
into which the LXX enters, than with any other single authority. Next to the
LXX it agrees most often with the Syriac or with combinations into which the
Syriac enters. On the other hand, its independence of the LXX is shown by a
large array of readings, where it has the support of the Samaritan and
Massoretic, or of these with various combinations of the Syriac, Vulgate and
Onkelos. From these and like considerations we may conclude that the textual
evidence points to the composition of our book at some period between 250
B.C. and 100 A.D. and at a time nearer the earlier date than the latter. 4

8. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK OF JUBILEES IN THE CRITICISM OF THE MASSORETIC
TEXT OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

From a study of the facts which are referred to in the preceding Section
it will be clear that before and after the Christian era the Hebrew text did
not possess any hard and fast tradition. It will further be obvious that the
Massoretic form of this text, which has so long been generally as
conservative of the most ancient tradition and as therefore final, is after
all only one of many phases through which the text passed in the process of
over 1,000 years, ie. 400 B.C. till A.D. 600, or thereabouts.

As we pursue the examination of the materials just mentioned we shall see
grounds for regarding the Massoretic text as the result partly of conscious
recension and partly of unconscious change extending over many centuries.
How this process affected the text in the centuries immediately preceding
and subsequent to the Christian era, we have some means of determining in
the Hebrew-Samaritan text which, however much it may have been tampered with
on religious or polemical grounds, still preserves in many cases the older
reading, even as it preserves the older of the alphabet. Next we have the
LXX of the Pentateuch, to which we may assign the date 200 B.C.; next the
Book of Jubilees just before the Christian era; the Syriac Pentateuch before
A.D. 100; the Vulgate of the fourth century; the Targums of Onkelos and
Ps.-Jon. in their present form A.D. 300-600.

We have above remarked that the evidence of 6 shows that the Massoretic
text is only one of the phases through which the Hebrew text has passed; and
if we consider afresh the materials of evidence suggested in that Section in
connexion with their dates, and given in some fullness in the Introductions
to Charles's Text and Commentary, we shall discover that in some respects it
is one of the latest phases of the Hebrew Pentateuch that has been
stereotyped by Jewish scholars in the Massoretic text.

This conclusion will tally perfectly with the tradition that all existing
Massoretic MSS. are derived in the main from one archetype, i.e. the Hebrew
Codex left behind him by Ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, and
whose family had lived at Tiberias in the eighth.

We shall now proceed to give a list of readings in the Massoretic text
which should be corrected into accord with the readings attested by such
great authorities as the Sam., LXX, Jub., Syr., VuIg.

The following list was published in Charles's Ethiopic Version of the
Hebrew Book of Jubilees in 1895. More than two-thirds of the emendations of
the Book of Genesis here suggested were subsequently accepted independently,
on the evidence of the Sam., LXX, Syr., Vulg., without a knowledge of
Jubilees, by C.J. Ball in his edition of the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1896,
by Kittel in his edition of the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1905, and more than
half in the recent Commentary of Gunkel.

[What follows contains many phrases written in Hebrew. At the time of
scanning there was not an accessible means to accurately reproduce the
Hebrew script. If this information is desired please see Mr. Charles book.]

DATE OF (a) THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND (b) OF THE VERSIONS.

(a) Jubilees was written between 153 B.C. and the year of Hyrcanus'
breach with the Pharisees. (1) It was written during the pontificate of the
Maccabean family, and not earlier than 155 B.C., when this office was
assumed by Jonathan the Maccabee. For in xxxii. 1, Levi is called a 'priest
of the Most High God.' Now the only Jewish high-priests who bore this title
were the Maccabean, who appear to have assumed it as reviving the order of
Melchizedek when they displaced the Zadokite order of Aaron. Despite the
objections of the Pharisees, it was used by the Maccabean princes down to
Hyrcanus II (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6.2). (2) It was written before 96 B.C.; for
since our author was of the strictest sect a Pharisee and at the same time
an upholder of the Maccabean pontificate, Jubilees cannot have been written
later than 96, when the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus were openly engaged
in mortal strife. (3) It was written before the public breach between
Hyrcanus and the Pharisees when Hyrcanus joined the Sadducean party. As
Hyrcanus died in 105, our book was written between 153 and 105.

But it is possible to define these limits more closely. The book
presupposes as its historical background the most flourishing period of the
Maccabean hegemony -such as that under Simon and Hyrcanus. The conquest of
Edom, which was achieved by the latter, is referred to in xxxviii. 14. Again
our text reflects accurately the intense hatred of Judah towards the
Philistines in the second century B.C. It declares that they will fall into
the hands of the righteous nation, and we learn from I Macc. and Josephus
that Ashdod and Gaza were destroyed by Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus
respectively. But it is in the destruction of Samaria, which is adumbrated
in the destruction of Shechem, xxx. 4-6, that we are to look for the true
terminus a quo. Now all accounts agree in representing the destruction of
Samaria as effected by Hyrcanus about four years before his death. Hence we
conclude that Jubilees was written between 109 and 105 B.C.

Many other phenomena point to the second-century origin of our book,
which are given in Charles's edition, pp. lviii-lxvi. Amongst these we might
mention the currency of older and severer forms of the halacha than
prevailed in the rabbinical schools, or were registered in the Mishnah. The
severe halacha regarding the sabbath in 1.8, 12, were indubitably in force
in the second century B.C., if not earlier, but were afterwards mitigated by
the Mishnah and later Judaism. Again the strict halacha in xv. 14 regarding
circumcision on the eighth day was a current, probably the current, view in
the second century B.C. and earlier, since it has the support of the
Samaritan text and the LXX. This strict law was subsequently relaxed in the
Mishnah. In xxxii. 15 the severe law of tithing found in Lev. xxvii. 15 is
enforced, but rabbinic tradition sought to weaken the statement. As regards
the halacha laid down in iii. 31 regarding the duty of covering one's shame,
it is highly probable that such a halacha did exist in the second century
B.C., when Judaism was protesting against the exposure of the person in the
Greek games. See also iii. 8-14 notes and xx. 4 note.

Other cases of strict rules afterwards relaxed are the limitation of
trees for use with burnt offerings (see xxi. 12-15 notes), the restriction
of the eating of the passover to the court of the Lords house (see xlix. 20
note), the close adherence to the exacting demand of Lev. xix. 24 that the
fourth year's fruit should be holy (see vii. 36 notes), though here we have
a variant reading. Note that the rest of the firstfruits belong to the
priests, who are to eat them 'before the altar.' On the other hand, the
thank-offerings in xxi. 8-10 do not belong to the priest. The computation of
the Feast of Weeks is different from the later prevalent Pharisaic reckoning
(see xv. 1 note; xvi. 13, xliv. 4-5), while the account of the Feast of
Tabernacles in xvi. 21-31 is peculiar to Jubilees.

Finally, we might draw attention to the fact that the Pharisaic
regulation about pouring water on the altar (Jer. Sukk. iv. 6; Sukk. 44a) at
the feast of tabernacles appears to have been unknown to him. We know that
the attempt of the Pharisees to enforce its adoption on Alexander Jannaeus
resulted in a massacre of the former. Attention might also be drawn to the
fact that the Priests and Levites still numbered in their ranks, as in the
days of the author of Chronicles, the masters of the schools and the men of
learning, and that these positions were not filled as in the days of Shammai
and Hillel by men drawn from the laity. This inference is to be deduced from
the fact that the Levites are represented as the guardians of the sacred
books and of the secret lore transmitted from the worthies of old time (x.
4, xlv. 16).

(b) Date of the Ethiopic and Latin Versions. There is no evidence for
determining the exact date of the Ethiopic version, but since it was
practically regarded as a canonical book it was probably made in the sixth
century. Ronsch, as we have already pointed out in 4, gives some evidence
for regarding the Latin version as made in the fifth century.

JUBILEES FROM ONE AUTHOR BUT BASED ON EASTERN BOOKS AND TRADITIONS.

Our book is the work of one author, but is largely based on earlier books
and traditions. The narrative of Genesis forms of course the bulk of the
book, but much that is characteristic in it is due to his use of many
pseudepigraphic and ancient traditions. Amongst the former might be
mentioned the Book of Noah, from which in a modified form he borrows vii.
20-39, x. 1-15. In vii. 26-39 he reproduces his source so faithfully that he
leaves the persons unchanged, and forgets to adapt this fragment to its new
context. Similarly our author lays the Book of Enoch under contribution, and
is of great value in this respect in determining the dates of the various
sections of this book. See Introd. to I Book of Enoch, in loc. For other
authorities and traditions used by our author see Charles's edition, 13.

JUBILEES IS A PRODUCT OF THE MIDRASHIC TENDENCY WHICH HAD BEEN ALREADY
AT WORK IN THE O.T. BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.

The Chronicler rewrote with an object the earlier history of Israel and
Judah already recounted in Samuel and Kings. His object was to represent
David and his pious successors as observing all the prescripts of the law
according to the Priests' Code. In the course of this process all facts that
did not square with the Chronicler's presuppositions were either omitted or
transformed. Now the author of Jubilees sought to do for Genesis what the
Chronicler had done for Samuel and Kings, and so he rewrote it in such a way
as to show that the law was rigorously observed even by the Patriarchs. The
author represents his book to be as a whole a revelation of God to Moses,
forming a supplement to and an interpretation of the Pentateuch, which he
designates 'the first law' (vi. 22). This revelation was in part a secret
republication of the traditions handed down from father to son in
antediluvian and subsequent times. From the time of Moses onwards it was
preserved in the hands of the priesthood, till the time came for its being
made known.

Our author's procedure is of course in direct antagonism with the
presuppositions of the Priests' Code in Genesis, for according to this code
'Noah may build no altar, Abraham offer no sacrifice, Jacob erect no sacred
pillar. No offering is recorded till Aaron and his sons are ready'
(Carpenter, The Hexateuch, i. 124). This fact seems to emphasize in the
strongest manner how freely our author reinterpreted his authorities for the
past. But he was only using to the full a right that had been exercised for
nearly four centuries already in regard to Prophecy and for four or
thereabouts in regard to the law.

OBJECT OF JUBILEES -THE DEFENCE AND EXPOSITION OF JUDAISM FROM THE
PHARISAIC STANDPOINT OF THE SECOND CENTURY B.C.

The object of our author was to defend Judaism against the disintegrating
effects of Hellenism, and this he did (a) by glorifying the law as an
eternal ordinance and representing the patriarchs as models of piety; (b) by
glorifying Israel and insisting on its separation from the Gentiles; and (e)
by denouncing the Gentiles and particularly Israel's national enemies. In
this last respect Judaism regarded its own attitude to the Gentiles as not
only justifiable but also just, because it was a reflection of the divine.

But on (a) it is to be observed further that to our author the law, as a
whole, was the realization in time of what was in a sense timeless and
eternal. It was observed not only on earth by Israel but in heaven. Parts of
the law might have only a time reference, to Israel on earth, but in the
privileges of circumcision and the Sabbath, as its highest and everlasting
expression, the highest orders of archangels in heaven shared with Israel
(ii. i8, 19, 21; xv. 26-28). The law, therefore, was supreme, and could
admit of no assessor in the form of Prophecy. There was no longer any
prophet because the law had made the free exercise of his gift an offence
against itself and God. So far, therefore, as Prophecy existed, it could
exist only under the guise of pseudonymity. The seer, who had like Daniel
and others a message for his time, could only gain a hearing by issuing it
under the name of some ancient worthy.

THE AUTHOR -A PHARISEE WHO RECOGNIZED THE MACCABEAN PONTIFICATE AND WAS
PROBABLY A PRIEST.

Since our author was an upholder of the everlasting validity of the law,
and held the strictest views on circumcision, the Sabbath, and the duty of
complete separation from the Gentiles, since he believed in angels and
demons and a blessed immortality, he was unquestionably a Pharisee of the
strictest sect. In the next place, he was a supporter of the Maccabean
pontificate. He glorifies Levi's successors as high-priests and civil
rulers, and applies to them the title priests of the Most High God '-the
title assumed by the Maccabean princes (xxxii. 1). He was not, however, so
thoroughgoing an admirer of this dynasty as the authors of Test. Lev. xviii.
or Ps. cx, who expected the Messiah to come forth from the Maccabean family.
Finally, that our author was a priest might reasonably be inferred from the
exaltation of Levi over Judah (xxxi-xxxii), and from the statement in xlv.
i6 that the secret traditions, which our author claims to publish, were kept
in the hands of Levi's descendants.

INFLUENCE ON LATER LITERATURE.

On the influence of Jubilees on I Enoch i-v, xci-civ, Wisdom (?), 4 Ezra,
Chronicles of Jerachmeel, Midrash Tadshe, Book of Jasher, the Samaritan
Chronicle, on Patristic and other writings, and on the New Testament
writers, see Charles's edition, pp. lxxiii-lxxxvi.

THEOLOGY. SOME OF OUR AUTHOR'S VIEWS.

Freedom and determinism. The author of Jubilees is a true Pharisee in
that he combines belief in Divine omnipotence and providence with the belief
in human freedom and responsibility. He would have adopted heartily the
statement of the Pss. Sol. ix. 7 (written some sixty years or more later)
(Gk.) ta erga emon en ekloge kai exousia tes psuches emon, tou poiesai
dikaiosunen kai adikian en ergois cheiron emon: v. 6 anthropos kai e meris
autou para soi en stathmo ou prosthesei tou pleonasai para to krima sou, o
theos. Thus the path in which a man should walk is ordained for him and the
judgement of all men predetermined on the heavenly tablets: 'And the
judgment of all is ordained and written on the heavenly tablets in
righteousness -even the judgment of all who depart from the path which is
ordained for them to walk in' (v.13). This idea of an absolute determinism
underlies many conceptions of the heavenly tablets (see Charles's edition,
iii. 10 note). On the other hand, man's freedom and responsibility are fully
recognized: 'If they walk not therein, judgment is written down for every
creature' (v. 13): 'Beware lest thou walk in their ways, And tread in their
paths, And sin a sin unto death before the Most High God. Else He will give
thee back into the hand of thy transgression.' Even when a man has sinned
deeply he can repent and be forgiven (xli. 24 seq.), but the human will
needs the strengthening of a moral dynamic: 'May the Most High God . . .
strengthen thee to do His will' (xxi. 25, xxii. 10).

The Fall. The effects of the Fall were limited to Adam and the animal
creation. Adam was driven from the garden (iii. 17 seqq.) and the animal
creation was robbed of the power of speech (iii. 28). But the subsequent
depravity of the human race is not traced to the Fall but to the seduction
of the daughters of men by the angels, who had been sent down to instruct
men (v.1-4), and to the solicitations of demonic spirits (vii. 27). The evil
engendered by the former was brought to an end by the destruction of all the
descendants of the angels and of their victims by the Deluge, but the
incitement to sin on the part of the demons was to last to the final
judgement (vii. 27, x. 1-15, xi. 4 seq., xii. 20). This last view appears in
I Enoch and the N.T.

The Law. The law was of eternal validity. It was not the expression of
the religious consciousness of one or of several ages, but the revelation in
time of what was valid from the beginning and unto all eternity. The various
enactments of the law moral and ritual, were written on the heavenly tablets
(iii. 31, vi. 17, &c.) and revealed to man through the mediation of
angels (i. 27). This conception of the law, as I have already pointed out,
made prophecy impossible unless under the guise of pseudonymity. Since the
law was the ultimate and complete expression of absolute truth, there was no
room for any further revelation: much less could any such revelation, were
it conceivable, supersede a single jot or tittle of the law as already
revealed. The ideal of the faithful Jew was to be realized in the fulfilment
of the moral and ritual precepts of this law: the latter were of no less
importance than the former. Though this view of morality tends to be mainly
external, our author strikes a deeper note when he declares that, when
Israel turned to God with their whole heart, He would circumcise the
foreskin of their heart and create a right spirit within them and cleanse
them, so that they would not turn away from Him for ever (i. 23). Our author
specially emphasizes certain elements of the law such as circumcision (xvi.
14, xv. 26, 29), the Sabbath (ii. 18 seq., 31 seq.), eating of blood (vi.
14), tithing of the tithe (xxxii. 10), Feast of Tabernacles (xvi. 29), Feast
of Weeks (vi. 17), the absolute prohibition of mixed marriages (xx. 4, xxii.
20, xxv. 1-10). In connexion with many of these he enunciates halacha which
belong to an earlier date than those in the Mishnah, but which were either
modified or abrogated by later authorities.

The Messiah. Although our author is an upholder of the Maccabean dynasty
he still clings like the writer of I Enoch lxxxiii-xc to the hope of a
Messiah sprung from Judah. He makes, however, only one reference to this
Messiah, and no role of any importance is assigned to him (see Charles's
edition, xxxi. 18 n.). The Messianic expectation showed no vigorous life
throughout this century till it was identified with the Maccabean family. If
we are right in regarding the Messianic kingdom as of temporary duration,
this is the first instance in which the Messiah is associated with a
temporary Messianic kingdom.

The Messianic kingdom. According to our author (i. 29, xxiii. 30) this
kingdom was to be brought about gradually by the progressive spiritual
development of man and a corresponding transformation of nature. Its members
were to attain to the full limit of 1,000 years in happiness and peace.
During its continuance the powers of evil were to be restrained (xxiii. 29).
The last judgement was apparently to take place at its close (xxiii. 30).
This view was possibly derived from Mazdeism.

The writer of Jubilees, we can hardly doubt, thought that the era of the
Messianic kingdom had already set in. Such an expectation was often
cherished in the prosperous days of the Maccabees. Thus it was entertained
by the writer of I Enoch lxxxiii-xc in the days of Judas before 161 B.C.
Whether Jonathan was looked upon as the divine agent for introducing the
kingdom we cannot say, but as to Simon being regarded in this light there is
no doubt. Indeed, his contemporaries came to regard him as the Messiah
himself, as we see from Psalm cx, or Hyrcanus in the noble Messianic hymn in
Test. Levi 18. The tame effus1on in 1 Macc. xiv. 8-15 is a relic of such
literature, which was emasculated by its Sadducean editor. Simon was
succeeded by John Hyrcanus in 135 B.C. and this great prince seemed to his
countrymen to realize the expectations of the past; for according to a
contemporary writer (Test. Levi 8) he embraced in his own person the triple
office of prophet, priest, and civil ruler (xxxi. i5), while according to
the Test. Reuben 6 he was to 'die on behalf of Israel in wars seen and
unseen'. In both these passages he seems to be accorded the Messianic
office, but not so in our author, as we have seen above. Hyrcanus is only to
introduce the Messianic kingdom, over which the Messiah sprung from Judah is
to rule.

Priesthood of Melchizedek. That there was originally an account of
Melchizedek in our text we have shown in the note on xiii. 2,5, and, that
the Maccabean high-priests deliberately adopted the title applied to him in
Gen. xiv, we have pointed out in the note on xxxii. I. It would be
interesting to inquire how far the writer of Hebrews was indebted to the
history of the great Maccabean king-priests for the idea of the
Melchizedekian priesthood of which he has made so fruitful a use in chap.
vii as applied to our Lord.

The Future Life. In our text all hope of a resurrection of the body is
abandoned. The souls of the righteous will enjoy a blessed immortality after
death (xxiii. 31). This is the earliest attested instance of this
expectation in the last two centuries B.C. It is next found in Enoch
xci-civ.

Angelology. We shall confine our attention here to notable parallels
between our author and the New Testament. Besides the angels of the presence
and the angels of sanctification there are the angels who are set over
natural phenomena (ii. 2). These angels are inferior to the former. They do
not observe the Sabbath as the higher orders; for they are necessarily
always engaged in their duties (ii. 18). It is the higher orders that are
generally referred to in the New Testament but the angels over natural
phenomena are referred to in Revelation: angels of the winds in vii. 1, 2,
the angel of fire in xiv. 18, the angel of the waters in xvi. 5 (cf. Jub.
ii. 2). Again, the guardian angels of individuals, which the New Testament
refers to in Matt. xviii. 10 (Acts xii. 15), are mentioned, for the first
time in Jubilees xxxv. 17. On the angelology of our author see Charles's
edition.

Demonology. The demonology of our author reappears for the most part in
the New Testament:

(a) The angels which kept not their first estate, Jude 6 ; 2 Peter ii. 4,
are the angelic watchers who, though sent down to instruct mankind (Jub. iv.
15), fell from lusting after the daughters of men. Their fall and punishment
are recorded in Jub. iv. 22, v.1-9.

(b) The demons are the spirits which went forth from the souls of the
giants who were the children of the fallen angels, Jub. v. 7, 9. These
demons attacked men and ruled over them (x. 3, 6). Their purpose is to
corrupt and lead astray and destroy the wicked (x. 8). They are subject to
the prince Mastema (x. 9), or Satan. Men sacrifice to them as gods (xxii.
17). They are to pursue their work of moral ruin till the judgement of
Mastema (x. 8) or the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, when Satan will
be no longer able to injure mankind (xxiii. 29).

So in the New Testament, the demons are disembodied spirits (Matt. xii.
43-5; Luke xi. 24-6). Their chief is Satan (Mark iii. 22). They are treated
as divinities of the heathen (I Cor. x. 20). They are not to be punished
till the final judgement (Matt. viii. 29). On the advent of the Millennium
Satan will be bound (Rev. xx. 2-3).

Judgement. The doctrine of retribution is strongly enforced by our
author. It is to be individual and national in this world and in the next.
As regards the individual the law of exact retribution is according to our
author not merely an enactment of human justice -the ancient lox talionis,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth; it is observed by God in His government of the
world. The penalty follows in the line of the sin. This view is enforced in
2 Macc. v. 10, where it is said of Jason, that, as he robbed multitudes of
the rites of sepulture, so he himself was deprived of them in turn, and in
xv. 32 seq. it is recounted of Nicanor that he was punished in those members
with which he had sinned. So also in our text in reference to Cain iv. 31
seq. and the Egyptians xlviii. 14. Taken crassly and mechanically the above
law is without foundation, but spiritually conceived it represented the
profound truth of the kinship of the penalty to the sin enunciated
repeatedly in the New Testament: 'Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also
reap' (Gal. vi.;); 'he that doeth wrong shall receive again the wrong that
he hath done' (Col. iii. 25, &c.). Again in certain cases the punishment
was to follow instantaneously on the transgression (xxxvii. 17).

The final judgement was to take place at the close of the Messianic
kingdom (xxiii. 30). This judgement embraces the human and superhuman worlds
(v. 10 seq., 14). At this judgement there will be no respect of persons, but
all will be judged according to their opportunities and abilities (v. 15
seq.). From the standpoint of our author there could be no hope for the
Gentiles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

(a) Greek Version: see above, 4 (a). Ethiopic Version: this text was
first edited by Dillmann from two MSS. cd in 1859, and by R. H. Charles from
four MSS. abcd. The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees with the
Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin Fragments, Oxford, 1895. Latin Version: see
above, 4 (a).